Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:58:13PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > one last thing, since we are moving SoC code out of the board tree. > would you prefer each SoC specific header directly in top level > include directory or within nclude/cortina subdirectory? i.e. > include/ca7774.h vs include/cortina/ca7774.h? Inside of arch/arm/include/asm/mach-ca/ you can split things how you think makes the most sense. There's many other examples to look at here. > > > On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:34:40PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > > > >> Sounds good Tom. We will send the next series with the ARMv8 low_level.S > >> moved to arch/mach-ca/ > >> Thanks for you guidance. Did you see anything else in 2nd series that > >> needs modified before we send > >> series 3 or can we assume those are fine to avoid sending another series > >> after this issues is fixed in series 3? > > > > That was all I noticed, thanks again. > > > >> > >>> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:55:29PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > Looking inside > grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S > #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774) > #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B) > > as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate > but slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in > arch/arm/mach-ca7774 > arch/arm/mach-ca8277B > arch/arm/mach-ca7742 > arch/arm/mach-ca8279 > arch/arm/mach-caXnnn > > correct? or should we simply create a arch/arm/mach-ca, > arch/mips/mach-ca, arch/xtensa/mach-a, arch/riscv/mach-ca, > etc to maintain similar > changes to each arch related custom code which varies slightly for each > SoC variation within each architecture? > What’s best to avoid maintaining duplicate code across SoC variations > within the same ISA family? > >>> > >>> I would hope we can get by with arch/arm/mach-ca or so and > >>> board/cortina/common/. How are you handling common code in the linux > >>> kernel? > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Tom > >> > > > > -- > > Tom > -- Tom signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
one last thing, since we are moving SoC code out of the board tree. would you prefer each SoC specific header directly in top level include directory or within nclude/cortina subdirectory? i.e. include/ca7774.h vs include/cortina/ca7774.h? > On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:34:40PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > >> Sounds good Tom. We will send the next series with the ARMv8 low_level.S >> moved to arch/mach-ca/ >> Thanks for you guidance. Did you see anything else in 2nd series that needs >> modified before we send >> series 3 or can we assume those are fine to avoid sending another series >> after this issues is fixed in series 3? > > That was all I noticed, thanks again. > >> >>> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:55:29PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: Looking inside grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774) #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B) as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate but slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in arch/arm/mach-ca7774 arch/arm/mach-ca8277B arch/arm/mach-ca7742 arch/arm/mach-ca8279 arch/arm/mach-caXnnn correct? or should we simply create a arch/arm/mach-ca, arch/mips/mach-ca, arch/xtensa/mach-a, arch/riscv/mach-ca, etc to maintain similar changes to each arch related custom code which varies slightly for each SoC variation within each architecture? What’s best to avoid maintaining duplicate code across SoC variations within the same ISA family? >>> >>> I would hope we can get by with arch/arm/mach-ca or so and >>> board/cortina/common/. How are you handling common code in the linux >>> kernel? >>> >>> -- >>> Tom >> > > -- > Tom
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:34:40PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > Sounds good Tom. We will send the next series with the ARMv8 low_level.S > moved to arch/mach-ca/ > Thanks for you guidance. Did you see anything else in 2nd series that needs > modified before we send > series 3 or can we assume those are fine to avoid sending another series > after this issues is fixed in series 3? That was all I noticed, thanks again. > > > On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:55:29PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > >> Looking inside > >> grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S > >> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774) > >> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B) > >> > >> as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate > >> but slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in > >> arch/arm/mach-ca7774 > >> arch/arm/mach-ca8277B > >> arch/arm/mach-ca7742 > >> arch/arm/mach-ca8279 > >> arch/arm/mach-caXnnn > >> > >> correct? or should we simply create a arch/arm/mach-ca, > >> arch/mips/mach-ca, arch/xtensa/mach-a, arch/riscv/mach-ca, > >> etc to maintain similar > >> changes to each arch related custom code which varies slightly for each > >> SoC variation within each architecture? > >> What’s best to avoid maintaining duplicate code across SoC variations > >> within the same ISA family? > > > > I would hope we can get by with arch/arm/mach-ca or so and > > board/cortina/common/. How are you handling common code in the linux > > kernel? > > > > -- > > Tom > -- Tom signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
Sounds good Tom. We will send the next series with the ARMv8 low_level.S moved to arch/mach-ca/ Thanks for you guidance. Did you see anything else in 2nd series that needs modified before we send series 3 or can we assume those are fine to avoid sending another series after this issues is fixed in series 3? > On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:55:29PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: >> Looking inside >> grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S >> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774) >> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B) >> >> as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate but >> slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in >> arch/arm/mach-ca7774 >> arch/arm/mach-ca8277B >> arch/arm/mach-ca7742 >> arch/arm/mach-ca8279 >> arch/arm/mach-caXnnn >> >> correct? or should we simply create a arch/arm/mach-ca, >> arch/mips/mach-ca, arch/xtensa/mach-a, arch/riscv/mach-ca, etc >> to maintain similar >> changes to each arch related custom code which varies slightly for each SoC >> variation within each architecture? >> What’s best to avoid maintaining duplicate code across SoC variations within >> the same ISA family? > > I would hope we can get by with arch/arm/mach-ca or so and > board/cortina/common/. How are you handling common code in the linux > kernel? > > -- > Tom
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:55:29PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > Looking inside > grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S > #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774) > #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B) > > as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate but > slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in > arch/arm/mach-ca7774 > arch/arm/mach-ca8277B > arch/arm/mach-ca7742 > arch/arm/mach-ca8279 > arch/arm/mach-caXnnn > > correct? or should we simply create a arch/arm/mach-ca, > arch/mips/mach-ca, arch/xtensa/mach-a, arch/riscv/mach-ca, etc > to maintain similar > changes to each arch related custom code which varies slightly for each SoC > variation within each architecture? > What’s best to avoid maintaining duplicate code across SoC variations within > the same ISA family? I would hope we can get by with arch/arm/mach-ca or so and board/cortina/common/. How are you handling common code in the linux kernel? -- Tom signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
Looking inside
grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S
#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774)
#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B)
as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate but
slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in
arch/arm/mach-ca7774
arch/arm/mach-ca8277B
arch/arm/mach-ca7742
arch/arm/mach-ca8279
arch/arm/mach-caXnnn
correct? or should we simply create a arch/arm/mach-ca,
arch/mips/mach-ca, arch/xtensa/mach-a, arch/riscv/mach-ca, etc to
maintain similar
changes to each arch related custom code which varies slightly for each SoC
variation within each architecture?
What’s best to avoid maintaining duplicate code across SoC variations within
the same ISA family?
On Jan 24, 2020, at 9:37 AM, Tom Rini
mailto:tr...@konsulko.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:22:50PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
We have many common features across ISAs and common ARM, MIPS, other ISA
modification across SoCs. Looking at how this was addressed
by other silicon vendors who support multiple ISAs, lead to this path. i.e.
TI, freescale, and others.
./board/BuR/common
./board/xilinx/common
./board/atmel/common
./board/ti/common
./board/seco/common
./board/gdsys/common
./board/avionic-design/common
./board/LaCie/common
./board/cortina/common
./board/xes/common
./board/varisys/common
./board/engicam/common
./board/siemens/common
./board/mscc/common
./board/toradex/common
./board/compulab/common
./board/alliedtelesis/common
./board/freescale/common
./board/keymile/common
./board/samsung/common
./board/google/common
./board/ge/common
Yes. And in I believe all of the above cases there is also a relevant
arch/*/mach-* directory. This can be a hard distinction to make
sometimes, especially at first, but board/VENDOR/common is for the parts
that are common but outside of a specific SoC. What you're putting in
there that is common between your MIPS and ARM platforms for example.
To use board/ti/common as an example there are platforms under
arch/arm/mach-omap2/{am33xx,omap5} and arch/arm/mach-k3/ that all share
that code.
To use one of your examples, lowlevel_init.S is something that is for
the SoC and would be shared by some other vendor that uses your
platform, right? It's leveraging features of the SoC itself rather than
the PCB design of the board.
Does that help? Thanks!
--
Tom
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:22:50PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
> We have many common features across ISAs and common ARM, MIPS, other ISA
> modification across SoCs. Looking at how this was addressed
> by other silicon vendors who support multiple ISAs, lead to this path. i.e.
> TI, freescale, and others.
>
>
> ./board/BuR/common
> ./board/xilinx/common
> ./board/atmel/common
> ./board/ti/common
> ./board/seco/common
> ./board/gdsys/common
> ./board/avionic-design/common
> ./board/LaCie/common
> ./board/cortina/common
> ./board/xes/common
> ./board/varisys/common
> ./board/engicam/common
> ./board/siemens/common
> ./board/mscc/common
> ./board/toradex/common
> ./board/compulab/common
> ./board/alliedtelesis/common
> ./board/freescale/common
> ./board/keymile/common
> ./board/samsung/common
> ./board/google/common
> ./board/ge/common
Yes. And in I believe all of the above cases there is also a relevant
arch/*/mach-* directory. This can be a hard distinction to make
sometimes, especially at first, but board/VENDOR/common is for the parts
that are common but outside of a specific SoC. What you're putting in
there that is common between your MIPS and ARM platforms for example.
To use board/ti/common as an example there are platforms under
arch/arm/mach-omap2/{am33xx,omap5} and arch/arm/mach-k3/ that all share
that code.
To use one of your examples, lowlevel_init.S is something that is for
the SoC and would be shared by some other vendor that uses your
platform, right? It's leveraging features of the SoC itself rather than
the PCB design of the board.
Does that help? Thanks!
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
We have many common features across ISAs and common ARM, MIPS, other ISA modification across SoCs. Looking at how this was addressed by other silicon vendors who support multiple ISAs, lead to this path. i.e. TI, freescale, and others. ./board/BuR/common ./board/xilinx/common ./board/atmel/common ./board/ti/common ./board/seco/common ./board/gdsys/common ./board/avionic-design/common ./board/LaCie/common ./board/cortina/common ./board/xes/common ./board/varisys/common ./board/engicam/common ./board/siemens/common ./board/mscc/common ./board/toradex/common ./board/compulab/common ./board/alliedtelesis/common ./board/freescale/common ./board/keymile/common ./board/samsung/common ./board/google/common ./board/ge/common On Jan 24, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Tom Rini mailto:tr...@konsulko.com>> wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:19:01AM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: Cortina Access management has decided that we want to add formal upstream support of u-boot going forward for our line of SoCs and evaluation boards. [snip] MAINTAINERS | 18 +++ arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 + arch/arm/dts/Makefile| 2 + arch/arm/dts/ca-presidio-engboard.dts| 69 +++ arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h | 2 +- board/cortina/common/Kconfig | 5 + board/cortina/common/armv8/ca7774_regs.h | 18 +++ board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S | 87 ++ board/cortina/presidio-asic/Kconfig | 20 board/cortina/presidio-asic/MAINTAINERS | 6 + board/cortina/presidio-asic/Makefile | 8 ++ board/cortina/presidio-asic/presidio.c | 126 I should have spotted this sooner, sorry. Why are you doing board/cortina/common/armv8/ rather than arch/arm/mach-xxx/ (and related include directory) as is the norm? -- Tom
Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] Add Cortina Access basic DM drivers
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:19:01AM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > > Cortina Access management has decided that we want to add formal > upstream support of u-boot going forward for our line of SoCs > and evaluation boards. [snip] > MAINTAINERS | 18 +++ > arch/arm/Kconfig | 5 + > arch/arm/dts/Makefile| 2 + > arch/arm/dts/ca-presidio-engboard.dts| 69 +++ > arch/arm/include/asm/gpio.h | 2 +- > board/cortina/common/Kconfig | 5 + > board/cortina/common/armv8/ca7774_regs.h | 18 +++ > board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S | 87 ++ > board/cortina/presidio-asic/Kconfig | 20 > board/cortina/presidio-asic/MAINTAINERS | 6 + > board/cortina/presidio-asic/Makefile | 8 ++ > board/cortina/presidio-asic/presidio.c | 126 I should have spotted this sooner, sorry. Why are you doing board/cortina/common/armv8/ rather than arch/arm/mach-xxx/ (and related include directory) as is the norm? -- Tom signature.asc Description: PGP signature
